A fact from Party-list representation in the House of Representatives of the Philippines appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 April 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
Article title should be changed to "party-list" from "sectoral representation"
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Per WP:COMMONNAME article names should be common names not official or legal names. For instance, see the Big Dig for the Central Artery project in Boston. The common name is "party-list representatives" not "sectoral representatives". Everyone in the newspapers and even the parties themselves refer to it as "party-list". Even Wikipedia use "party-list": Philippine House of Representatives party-list election, 2010. The article title should be changed to Party-list representatives. There is no need for a "Philippines" qualifier since no other articles exists using that title. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The party-list system is relatively new and so there hasn't been much analysis done. Now there has been. Perhaps we can cut back on the math -- on the many formulas -- and add in more third-party analysis. This I think would make it more readable. I think that all the formulas make the article rather long. Maybe they can be separated out into a separate article or a link to an external page added. The article would then have space for some more analysis and criticism of the system. Who has gotten elected? From where? Unfortunately I don't have such handy. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
The math is as important as the analysis, IMO. After all, the math determines who gets wins and who doesn't. The party-lists can game the system all they want but if they can't get over the math they can't screw with it. Coverage of the individual party-list orgs and elections are wanting so if anyone can help please do so. –HTD07:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
